Brodsky Pile-On

Environmentalists and other supporters of congestion pricing wasted no time in criticizing Assemblyman Richard Brodsky’s report, issuing a press release that is essentially a series of statements from various members of the Campaign for New York’s future.

Among the criticisms of Brodsky: “faux populism and soundbites.”

Easier to just cut and paste; you can read the remarks on the jump.

Neysa Pranger, Campaign Coordinator, NYPIRG/Straphangers Campaign: “Transit riders should take note: the legislature is about to take a classic misstep and turn down $500 million in federal funds for immediate transit enhancements and a congestion pricing pilot to fund badly needed transit repairs in the future.Â New York State legislators have a choice: act now to approve congestion pricing, and faster, safer more affordable commutes, or face the wrath of constituents forced to pay higher transit fares later.”

Andy Darrel, Regional Director, Environmental Defense: â€œAssemblyman Brodsky claims that unspecified public health and environmental benefits would result from congestion pricing.Â The health benefits of reducing traffic are clear.

â€œA definitive and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that living, working or going to school within about 500-1500 feet of a major roadway leads to higher exposures to traffic-related air pollution and increased risks from a variety of health problems, including asthma, other chronic lung diseases, heart attacks, and adverse birth outcomes.Â More than 2 million New Yorkers live in this zone.Â

â€œStudies also show that stop and go traffic is up to three times more dangerous than free-flowing traffic.Â Congestion pricing would increase speeds, reduce volume and decrease exposure to hazardous traffic-related pollution. And, there is proof that congestion pricing works. The implementation of the plan in London has reduced traffic, increased speeds and cut emissions not just in the central business district, but throughout the city.Â Traffic congestion has decreased by an average of 30 percent in the tolled zone.Â The average speed has increased by 15 percent.Â These improvements have cut emissions from traffic congestion by 18 percent. The London system is expected to raise $244 million this year that will then be reinvested in public transit improvements.â€

Â

Joan Byron, Director, Sustainability & Environmental Justice Initiative at the Pratt Center for Community Development: â€œIt looks like Richard Brodsky is using a superficial set of statistics in a way that obscures the question of who pays and who benefits from congestion pricing.Â The fact is that low- and moderate-income New Yorkers overwhelmingly take public transportation to work â€“ even from neighborhoods where the trip involves taking a bus to the train, and takes an hour or more door-to-door. In all of the boroughs, the people who now choose to drive to Manhattan are wealthier than their neighbors who go by subway, bus, and ferry. Overall, less than five percent of outer-borough commuters drive to Manhattan below 86th Street. The other 95% either take public transportation, or commute to other destinations. Both of these groups stand to benefit from congestion pricing. Those who take transit stand to gain real improvements financed by the chargeÂ â€“ new express bus service, and bus rapid transit.â€

Jeffrey Zupan, Senior Fellow for Transportation, Regional Plan Association: â€œThe study we released this weekend represents definitive proof that the proposed alternatives to congestion pricing simply will not address or solve the major issues facing our city. It also showed that none of these alternatives address the question of where to get the funding necessary to improve our transportation system. Clearly, it is more critical than ever to get the federal money for the Mayorâ€™s PlaNYC plan before the fast-approaching July 16th deadline.â€

Marcia Bystryn, Executive Director of the New York League of Conservation Voters: â€œPerhaps the most important thing about this report is what it doesnâ€™t do â€“ namely, evaluate the cost to our environment if Albany doesnâ€™t act immediately. The New York metro area is literally choked by traffic, with some neighborhoods posting asthma rates that are two, three, even four times the national average. We are also facing the unprecedented threat of climate change. Transportation experts agree that PlaNYC and congestion pricing is the best option to ease gridlock, improve our transit system and reduce air pollution. Every minute that Albany delays action on all three fronts is another minute that these problems grow worse.â€

Michael Oâ€™Loughlin, Director of the Campaign for New Yorkâ€™s Future: â€œNew York is facing real challenges from global warming, traffic congestion that chokes our economy, air pollution so severe it threatens our health, and massive MTA budget gaps at a time we need to expand transit service for a rapidly growing population. Independent organizations, trusted advocates and academic experts agree that New York Cityâ€™s comprehensive sustainability plan, including congestion pricing, will reduce traffic, improve our environment and generate billions of dollars in mass transit improvements.Â Sadly, the report released today by Assembly Member Brodsky does not measure up to that same standard.Â Now is not the time for faux populism or misleading soundbites in the service of special interests.Â Right now, New York needs our leaders to focus on securing $500 million in federal grants to implement a program that will immediately improve transit options for lower and middle class New Yorkers.â€